Who Owns Your Weblog?

An anonymous reader asks: "If you're a weblogger, have you read the fine print of your employment agreement? Many webloggers are techies and many tech employers have highly restrictive IP clauses in their employment contracts - the employers owns you and everything you do whether at work or at home or anywhere else. Are you sure you own your weblog? You may not be allowed to take it with you when you change jobs." As always, please remember to look over those employment contracts before you sign. With that point mentioned however, are employers still likely to employ someone who is willing to argue points on their contract, especially in this economic climate?

Comments

well

[The Clockwork Troll]

Are employers still likely to employ someone who is willing to argue points on their contract, especially in this economic climate?

Put another way, are you willing to sell out title to your potential future ventures for the "comfort" of short-term job security?

Re:well

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the majority of the job openings in the US. And in my experience, no, employers don't negotiate employment contracts for any jobs below the Director (possibly Group Manager) level. The only way they'll negotiate is if they came to -you- for the position, not the other way around.

Re:well

[stefanlasiewski]

Put another way, are you willing to sell out title to your potential future ventures for the "comfort" of short-term job security?

If you think it's about "comfort", you're probably not very familar with the dilemma.

For most people, it's not a matter of "comfort", it's a matter of "Getting a job after a year of unemployment", "Not having to sell the house", "Feed the kids", "Switching industries and starting at the bottom", "Working at McDonalds".

You make it seem like these these clauses are new. They've been in every employment contract I've seen for the last 8 years; and have been around for much, much longer then that.

Re:well

[bitty]

I'm gonna take hell for this, but I'm so damn tired of the whining.

If you're out of work, and the unemployment benefits run out, swallow your goddamn pride and get that job flipping burgers. Then go out and get a second part-time -- hell, even a full time job scooping ice cream or pouring coffee or something. Do that while you're looking for that job in the area of your expertise.

But how can I do interviews when I'm working all the time?

Make your "weekends" on a Tuesday and Wednesday or something. Most employers in the food industry are very flexible, since they're open every day. That may just be enough to not have to sell the house, to put food on the table, etc.

Stop bitching and do what you have to do to provide for your family, no matter how degrading.

Re:well

[Anonymous Coward]

You make it seem like these these clauses are new. They've been in every employment contract I've seen for the last 8 years; and have been around for much, much longer then that.

I've seen them in the initial contract for every job offer I've had, and I have never had a problem with having them removed.

One manager told me that the only reason they have that clause in the first contract they offer is as a test to see if an applicant will just accept what they are given, or if they will take the initiative to try to change it.

Re:well

[gmhowell]

Stop bitching and do what you have to do to provide for your family, no matter how degrading.

I think the parent was making the same point. But he was saying that sucking it up and not owning your blog is better than working at McDonald's. Now if you go to the grandparent, you've got a point.

Or perhaps I'm all wrong. But 'providing for your family' is much easier done at some desk job than at Mc Donald's.

Or something.

Re:well

[stefanlasiewski]

I've seen them in the initial contract for every job offer I've had, and I have never had a problem with having them removed.

Some people are luckier, more in demand, or have better negotiating skills.

I have known people who got them removed, but that was back in 1999/2000 during the boom.

Since then, I have known several out-of-work people who have unsuccessfully tried to remove the clause. Several lost the job to someone else because of this.

If you've been out of work for a year, and then you loose a job offer because you tried to negotiate the IP clauses, you really start to rethink your strategy. (No, it wasn't me).

Sure, you could work at McDonalds, but they'll violate your rights with the drug tests and overtime abuse.

Which rights are you willing to sacrifice?

Re:well

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's some hell for you.
Go apply at a few McDonalds, Radio Shacks, CompUsa's, night time janatorial services or security gaurd positions, and see if you actually do get a job.
Perhaps you will learn the term "overqualified"

Re:well

[anthony_dipierro]

One manager told me that the only reason they have that clause in the first contract they offer is as a test to see if an applicant will just accept what they are given, or if they will take the initiative to try to change it.

Ah but which of those two types of people were they looking for?

Re:well

[yuri benjamin]

Perhaps you will learn the term "overqualified"

While it's fraudulent to add qualifications to your resume, it's not fraudulent to leave them out. So trim your resume to the job.
I've done this before.

Re:well

[Anonymous Coward]

But 'providing for your family' is much easier done at some desk job than at Mc Donald's.

Ah, no, they can alway come over and snatch a few burger and fries :)

Re:well

[MrResistor]

What is up with all the whiners who think "The current economic situation" is synonomous with "must let any prospective employer take you from behind". You don't want to work for someone who thinks it's OK to treat their employees that way.

Despite all the whining, there are plenty of other employers out there, and many of them don't have such clauses in their contracts. In fact, I have never seen an employment contract that had such a clause, and I do read them. I was just hired at a large tech company with a large and very valuable IP portfolio and when I told the HR person who was going over the contract and other paperwork with me of my concerns she was quite shocked that a company would even think about trying to take ownership of something I did in my spare time.

One final note on the lack of jobs: just because nobody's hiring doesn't mean the work doesn't still need to get done. Companys are making up for their self-imposed workforce shortage by bringing in temps, and that has worked out just fine for me. I entered the full-time workforce 4 years ago, and about 2/3 of that time I've been working as a temp. I've never been out of work for more than a week at a time or more than 3 weeks total per year, and I've never had a problem paying my bills or supporting my family.

Re:well

[Mr. Slippery]

And in my experience, no, employers don't negotiate employment contracts for any jobs below the Director (possibly Group Manager) level.

I'm no Director or Group Manager, just a hacker, but I've had such "All your time are belong to us" clauses striken from contracts twice.

I just pointed out that, under the clause as written, I couldn't teach my karate classes, or write my poetry. Surely they didn't mean such a silly thing as that, I know it's not their intention, but I can't sign a binding document that means I'd abandon my poor students, think of the children in my karate class, or the college kids in my writing workshop...

Of course, the increasing prevalance of bullshit like this is part of the reason I've cut back to doing tech work part-time, and am now studying massage and shiatsu. (Though it was not even an issue at my current tech job.) Do bodywork part-time, do some tech consulting on the side, and never again have to argue with morons about who gets to control my ideas and my spare time. (Or about peeing in a cup. Or have to worry about some guy in India doing my job for half the pay.)

Re:well

[Harik]

I had no problem getting the clause removed. I said "I've done work outside the company that's unrelated to your buisness concerns. And, while I know nobody here would take advantage of the clause, if we merge/are bought out/whatever how do I know the new management won't?" If they won't remove those clauses, it's because they fully intend to take advantage of you. A contract that includes everything I do 24/7 will cost about 4 times as much as a contract that only owns me from 9-5 M-F. Mind you, I've got skills in a diverse set of technical fields and have been doing this before, through and after the .com. A lot of people who can't find work are the ones who jumped into the tech industry to get those 6 figure startup salarys. They're great, as long as you want a cheap college grad for gruntwork. Finding someone who can program in any language you throw at them, network routers, understand cryptosystems, develop on both servers and embedded systems. Well, they arn't as common. They're also the ones still employed.

Re:well

[/dev/trash]

That's a good one:
Do that while you're looking for that job in the area of your expertise.

These crappy jobs must come with a potion to extend the day an extra 8 hours, so you can work full time AND look for a job full time. Or perhaps you're just supposed to skip sleeping.

easy. I do.

[susehat]

I never let anyone have my ideas. I always disclose that I have the rights to all my work, and my employer has no rights at all, unless I implicitly assign them. I usually do, but hey, still, I'm not going to sell out. I have yet to run into any issues in the past, and this was for a government contractor.

Re:easy. I do.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you go around implicitly assigning ideas, then I guess it's implicit that you don't own a dictionary.

Linux training/publishing companies will keep you

[Rares Marian]

They barely have any idea what to do by themselves. It's not the economy it's the desperation of the employer to get the document finished.

News how...?

[Jerf]

Adding the word "Weblogging" hardly makes this news. If they own "everything" then surely that encompasses "weblog", no?

All I know is I can't ever sign anything like this. I can't afford to potentially taint my external

Re:News how...?

[gl4ss]

In most places such clauses carry no legal weight at all anyways, since you just can't sign some rights away(to avoid slavery&etc). Sure, the employer owns rights to stuff you do for them...

Re:News how...?

[I8TheWorm]

You're right. I've seen corporate IP lawsuits 3 times in my career (none that I was directly involved in other than being an expert witness) and all three times the employee won. The company can only legally claim the work you've done for them, while at work, and only if it's explicitly detailed in the contract.

Law?

[LarryRiedel]

I work in california.us, where we have laws about this kind of thing, for example:

2870. (a) Any provision in an employment agreement which provides
that an employee shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her
rights in an invention to his or her employer shall not apply to an
invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time
without using the employer's equipment, supplies, facilities, or
trade secret information except for those inventions that either:
(1) Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of
the invention to the employer's business, or actual or demonstrably
anticipated research or development of the employer; or
(2) Result from any work performed by the employee for the
employer.
(b) To the extent a provision in an employment agreement purports
to require an employee to assign an invention otherwise excluded from
being required to be assigned under subdivision (a), the provision
is against the public policy of this state and is unenforceable.

2871. No employer shall require a provision made void and
unenforceable by Section 2870 as a condition of employment or
continued employment. Nothing in this article shall be construed to
forbid or restrict the right of an employer to provide in contracts
of employment for disclosure, provided that any such disclosures be
received in confidence, of all of the employee's inventions made
solely or jointly with others during the term of his or her
employment, a review process by the employer to determine such issues
as may arise, and for full title to certain patents and inventions
to be in the United States, as required by contracts between the
employer and the United States or any of its agencies.

Larry

Re:Law?

[transiit]

I also work in california, and to their credit, my employer made this very clear upfront, citing this specific passage.

For their courtesy, I don't check my personal email, post to my weblog, work on personal projects, sleep, run pyramid schemes, etc. from work.

Thus, they pay me to work on their stuff, and I do. And then I go home and work on other stuff, which largely helps keep me sane.

-transiit

Re:Law?

[exhilaration]

Dude, I think this part sums it up pretty well: shall not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time without using the employer's equipment, supplies, facilities...

If you're doing this using your employer's computer, using your employer's Internet connectivity, in your employer's facilities then you this law doesn't protect you.

Re:Law?

[yuri benjamin]

If you're doing this using your employer's computer, using your employer's Internet connectivity, in your employer's facilities then you this law doesn't protect you.

And neither should it! They provide you with the tools to do your job for them, not for your own use.
OTOH I don't see what business it is of theirs what you do in your own time with your own resources.

A very sensible law.

Creative editing

[Anonymous Coward]

A while back, my employer asked me to sign yet another IP assignment agreement ... sigh. Fortunately, it was sent around as an MS-Word document to be printed, signed and turned in to HR.

The doc was much like previous ones, but contained a total assignment of all copyrights. I thought that was over-reaching, and modified the language to read exactly like for inventions and patents "in the course of or resulting from employment". Signed and sent the form in two years ago. No probs. They won't look at it unless they want to fire me, and even then, likely will not notice because the language is totally innocuous.

Still posted as AC for obvious reasons.

Re:Creative editing

[czephyr]

I just signed one myself; yesterday and I really don't care about IP until the fatal seperation from the JOB. Today I got Wined and Dined by the BIG boss and got a lot of Info on the Job. I do sometimes worry that something I'm doing under my own house to make money on the side could be snatched. The answer is: Copyright or trademark it. Your lawyer will be able to justify to the judge that it was yours (hardware or software invention) and say a lot of other stuff about protecting things that go on in your head etal... Don't sweat it Dean Kamen?

Experience With a Restrictive Employment Contract

[Babbster]

First off, I'm not a techie, so this won't apply to a great many people here. That being said, these kinds of agreements have popped up in a lot of places over the past decade or so even outside the tech professions.

My experience was at the American Red Cross. I was responsible for maintaining our local list of ineligible blood donors (positive infectious disease test results and the like). One day, everyone in the place was presented with a new "employment agreement" which we were supposed to sign. One of the provisions indicated just what is described in this story; specifically, anything I happened to create, invent, design, etc. - whether during work hours or not - belonged to the American Red Cross unless they decided to relinquish those rights. Now, I'm no kind of inventor but I was 23 years old with few responsibilities beyond myself and so I was the perfect person to protest this agreement on pure principle. I adamantly refused to sign the paper because I felt that it gave too much power over my life to my employer, not to mention the fact that a non-profit corporation specializing in disaster relief and blood collection/distribution shouldn't have an interest in anything that I create (assuming it has nothing to do with disaster relief, blood collection, etc.).

At first, I was told that if I didn't sign the paper I was risking the loss of my job. I maintained that this was a chance I was willing to take (and encouraged others to do the same). About a month later, the new employment agreement was revised into a more palatable format. Though I can't recall if it specified inventions/creations relating specifically to my employment or if the clause was taken out completely, the document was acceptable and I signed.

My advice is pretty simple: Check your state/local laws - as in a post above, an overly restrictive clause of this nature could be invalid on its face. If it IS valid, then you have to decide if a) you're willing (and financially able) to leave the job on principle to hopefully find one where you're not forced to sign such an odious document, b) you're going to create/design/invent something in which your company would want to claim an interest or c) you know you're not going to create something that you will want to sell (or release, a la open source) to which you could lose your rights. After all, while a company could theoretically lay claim to, for example, your David Hasselhoff fan site, they probably won't. On the other hand, if you create brand new database software in your free time while working for [any] software company, they could potentially strip it from you and from anyone else to whom you have given or sold it.

At the risk of going too long, remember too that Steve Wozniak worked for HP when he created the Apple computer. He offered it to them because as part of his contract he was required to do so. They had no interest at all, which I'm sure they regretted for a long time.

Huh?

[Kris_J]

The question doesn't make sense. Is the poster asking about weblog software developed on company time, or weblog entries made from home? If I fix a friend's computer, the company I happen to work for don't suddenly own it, nor can they send said friend a bill -- that's just silly. My weblog used to live on my own personal bit of webspace given to me as part of my private dial-up account, in no way funded by any company I've ever worked for. I might have been concerned about some cow-orkers reading it, but not the company owning it. Would they own any letters I post to a newspaper? No, again, silly.

Re:Huh?

[stoborrobots]

Actually, the story is actually telling you TO be concerned...

Re-read your employment contract... chances are that it says that they can claim ownership of your "wn personal bit of webspace given to [you] as part of [your] private dial-up account" if they want... Probably also your letters to the editor...

Be careful what you assume...

Re:Huh?

[Zachary Kessin]

On the other hand a weblog is probably something that even if they could claim ownership of they won't. Unless it directly relates to your job (which It could I guess) why should they care?

I am not working at the moment, but if I was would my employer really want to own my articles on names for use in the sca and my pictures of Jerusalem? All are on my web site, but who cares.

Re:Huh?

[Kris_J]

Actually, the story is actually telling you TO be concerned...

Ah, scare-mongering. Slow news day is it?

Does your webhost own your weblog?

[sakusha]

I had a huge fight with my weblog host. They locked me out of my blog, and refused to relinquish control when I migrated to a new host, leaving my old dead blog to compete with my new blog. I had to file a DMCA complaint to get back control. The asshole webhost still doesn't realize how close they came to having their entire system disconnected, just because they decided to be vindictive and fuck with me. I felt really bad about considering a DMCA complaint until I finally came to the conclusion they were just being plain malicious assholes and the DMCA was my only recourse without hiring a lawyer. So I filed, they drug their feet but finally caved in, only an hour before their upstream was going to pull the plug.

Re:Does your webhost own your weblog?

[MonTemplar]

FWIW, I'm using Radio Userland for my weblog, and publishing it via my own domain and webspace, both supplied by 1&1 Internet here in the UK. All the content (posts, stories, pictures, etc) are held on my PC, and pushed out to the website (thankfully, I have a broadband connection) when I do updates. The other stuff (comments, trackback information) is held on the Userland 'cloud'. In theory, I should be able to transfer my weblog to a new domain and keep everything intact.

MT.

Re:Does your webhost own your weblog?

[sakusha]

No, you can only transfer a Radio weblog to another Manilla server. You could run your own Manilla server if you purchase the software for the low low price of $1000.

So, use Greenspun's "Gang of Five" model...

[ivi]

The quoted name is my spin-off...
and - it's been a so long since I
first read about it - that I may
have the number of team members
wrong...

But the idea is something like this:

It's a business model for database-based
web system design that brings [4 or] 5
talents together to work on a stream of
projects, rotating "hats" (ie, Project
Manage, Programmer, Customer Liason,
Graphic Designer, et al.) as they move
from one project to another.

As the number of projects grows to be
more than one "Gang of [4 or] Five"
can handle, another "Gang" forms to
handle the overload.

I suppose there could be a loose coupling
between the various, independent "Gangs"
(eg, to enable "load balancing" to happen),
but they could just as well remain separate
entities & control their own destinies...
a bit like music bands.

Thus, if you control your own destiny,
you can write your own IP clauses...
to encourage members' creativity,
while still protecting Clients' rights
to their IP & sensitive business info.

I can see a contract (akin to the GPL),
- incorporating these IP terms - that
each "Gang of [4 or] Five" would find
acceptable.

Of course, I can also see a family of
such contracts (like those that have
been embraced by one or more developers
of various flavors of Open Source S/W),
that new "Gangs" could choose, accord-
ing to their &/or their current Client's
preferences & needs.

IMO this problem has an easy solution!

UNLESS you make a deal for use of Employer's gear

[ivi]

Who says you can't make a deal ($ for use)
like that, but which doesn't force you to
give away something you value?

Such a deal might save you travel time,
eg if you're (otherwise) on-call, ie
when you're needed back at the office
(you might aleady be there, doing your
own thing on contracted gear, using a
fast 'net connection you've contracted
to use on a strictly after-hours basis;
walk over, fix their glitch [quicker than
you would if you had to drive in first]
& later resume your own project work...)

Let's create a website on IP terms & co, names

[ivi]

It might help put a bit of pressure on employers,
eg if their contractual IP terms were -listed- on
a well-known web site, that people could consult,
just before job-hopping...

If it were -also- suggested that -less- creative
people (ie those with little to lose by signing
a -bad- IP contract) were more likely to be the
ones working at one category of company, than
the other category...

well, those companies concerned about their
reputations in the market (eg, as being very
innovative), might re-think their IP terms,
etc.

Re:Experience With a Restrictive Employment Contra

[anthony_dipierro]

At the risk of going too long, remember too that Steve Wozniak worked for HP when he created the Apple computer. He offered it to them because as part of his contract he was required to do so. They had no interest at all, which I'm sure they regretted for a long time.

And I'm sure they won't make *that* mistake again.

I do it

[setien]

I always argue whatever points I feel unfair on my contract. The last 3 jobs I have had, I have had them change that clause so it only includes what I do in my working hours.
I find that clause so completely unacceptable, and I think any workplace who would not concede to change it, are a bunch of nasty buggers anyway.
I argue that I partake in open source projects and free/shareware. That's usually ample argument.

Re:I do it

[TwistedSquare]

I agree that is totally unacceptable. Given that the EU and UN seem to be introducing various human rights laws, and I remember that one of them prevented your employer contacting you at home or somesuch, I wonder if these agreements might violate one of those laws? I know IP isn't usually the domain of human rights but you never know what the laws can be applied to..

Worth arguing the point

[91degrees]

Your employer typically has no interest in your weblog, or he novel you write in your free time (unless they're a publisher), or anything that's not related to their business.

Simply ask them to exclude anything that is done entirely in your free time without use of company equipment, and most companies will accept. It doesn't cost them anything, and even though the market is in decline, they still don't want to get rid of employees over trivial disputes over contractual clauses.

Re:Experience With a Restrictive Employment Contra

[Oddly_Drac]

"They had no interest at all, which I'm sure they regretted for a long time."

As such, companies now are trying to retain rights to _everything_ rather than let anyone catch a break from them.

Although the temptation is to argue the toss, I think it tends to depend on what's being talked about...if you develop a competing product at work, then there's no doubt that you owe them, but there isn't a chance in hell that I'd let my company have any part of my life outside hours or the front doors unless they plan on paying for them. Start on that slippery slope and they'll take, and take, and take...

It's important to note that anyone being told that their job is on the line if they don't sign a contract is _specifically_ disallowed by pretty much all employment law in the western world, and a threat like that would be worth a mint in litigation court.

The correct answer to such a threat is 'Can I have that in writing?'

You don't have to accept it

[TheLink]

Either you walk away or:

a) Negotiate. (if you have good rapport)
OR
b) Change the contract explicitly - strike out paragraphs. (if you have good bargaining power or couldn't be bothered).
OR
c) Write a new contract that looks almost the same and use it.
(if you don't have bargaining power).

Yes. Change it to suit yourself. Print it out again make it look almost exactly the same - fonts, layout etc.

If both parties sign it, then it's agreed then. Hey they entered into it with their eyes opened right?

Just tell them you need time to think about it. Go home, pick the right fonts, similar paper and reproduce the whole thing with a few custom changes.

Remember keep a straight face, sign it, give it to them and they'll probably sign it without reading the fine print (idiots ;) ).

If they notice, well you've proven one thing to them at least:
1) you're resourceful.
2) you're one of the few who treat what they sign seriously. Not one of the sheeple.

I've successfully done a similar thing before on a so called NDA. Took me a couple of hours to retype the thing and get the font sizes right.

But let me put it this way - the new NDA didn't restrict my rights at all...

Of course in the US you might come under the DMCA for reverse engineering the contract document or some other dumb US law. But I'm not in the US.

Re:You don't have to accept it

[innocent_white_lamb]

c) Write a new contract that looks almost the same and use it.

That sounds dangerously close to fraud and deceptive business practices to me. At the very least, it shows substantial bad faith on your part. If you want to negotiate something, then by all means negotiate it. But at least be honest about it.

I am a techie, and I entirely agree with this

[MythoBeast]

I've been asked to sign that kind of agreement about three times in my career, and every time I have declined on the grounds that it would give them rights to my web site, any code that I wrote to update Opensource projects, and even personal emails that I write to my family while at home.

In no case I have ever seen was a person actually fired for not signing one of these. On the other hand, I've never been in a situation where I had to sign one of those to get hired in the first place. Are there any actual experiences out there in that direction?

what are you going to put in your weblog?

[NumLk]

I know mine has very few details of my work life, primarily because I have no interest in writing about work when I'm not at work. If I were to post some details about my work that my employer might consider theirs, I'd be more afraid of losing my job, rather than taking that information with me and facing the consequences.

Does anyone know people that actually post copyrighted code, inside stock information, blueprints, etc. on their weblog??

As always, check your contract

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

My contract has the usual sort of clause assigning rights to my employer for things I create. It also has a specific exemption (that they put in, not me) for anything created outside my normal working hours and unconnected with my employment.

I asked to see a copy of the full contract before accepting the job, precisely to check whether such a clause was there. If it hadn't been, and they hadn't been prepared to insert one, they wouldn't have got me.

No, the employment market is not so bad that I will sign away potentially life-changing rights before I even know I have them. If I'm going to work for a company that wants that sort of control over my soul, I'll do it flipping burgers or stacking store shelves, not for someone who's bottom-feeding off my hard-earned expertise.

If in doubt...

[CatGrep]

Don't use your real name; use a pseudonym. Seems pretty straightforward.

Money

[Detritus]

That lack of interest can disappear very quickly if your part-time project becomes a commercial success. Greed is a great motivator.

Just a question.

[jotaeleemeese]

Where do you stop the slippery slope?

Re:Just a question.

[stefanlasiewski]

Not sure, but it starts somewhere around "not taking a job in the corporate world".

Some people do that, but they're probably not on Slashdot. Rather, they're hiking through the Himilayas or Patagonia right now.

Also a techie.

[roninbix]

Yup. Basically at my current job I signed the original employment agreement accepting their offer then they pulled a bunch of IP docs out as a "second wave" of contracts. That second wave included signing over everything from actual code to mere design or technique work that I created on my spare time. Don't recall the list of what I signed over, but it was about 7 or so lines long of comma separated items and I remember being pretty sure they covered anything I or any of my family members or decendants would ever create. Not mentioned prior of course. I'm a new grad at that point. What do I say? No I don't want your $42K job right out of school with options and unbelievable benefits because I want to be ideological?

It wasn't presented as an arguable point. It's more like refusing to give a SIN (Canada's version of SSN) or something. The contract is done and now you're just fulfilling the legal necessities of implementing it. Welcome to non-competition docs, global intellectual property agreements etc. I believe prior to that in interviews all I ever agreed to was making myself available to travel at the drop of a hat. Then a few months later after my work became critical I found carrying a pager and cell phone and being accessible 24/7 to any of 150 people ranging from co-workers to customers to suddenly be a new job requirement. That one still pisses me off. We're having huge disagreements about whether I need to be carrying a cell phone on *_vacations_*.

Huh? This article misses the point by a mile.

[mcmonkey]

This doesn't make sense. A web log is akin to a journal or diary. How many employers assert ownership of employees' diaries? How many IP clauses in employment agreements could reasonably be construed as applying to diaries? Do you really think the IP ownership clause in your contact would be applied to a note you write in a mother's day card?

Now if you are a journalist, reporter, or employed in a fashion along those lines as an employee and not a free-lance contributor, then I could see personal writings made public as in a web log getting some scrutiny.

Actually there's an entirely different issue which is more realistic, more likely, and more probably a practical concern. It occurred to me before I finished reading the article and is alluded to by another post regarding moving a web log from one host to another.

Does your web log host own your log? What's in your hosting agreement? Can the hosting company repackage/reprint/redistribute entries from your log in whole or editing without your permission or knowledge?

That's the real story.

Re:Huh? This article misses the point by a mile.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the point is read the contract, take what you sign seriously. Don't make assumptions. Chances are the clauses are worded as broadly as possible.

Another data point

[humblecoder]

Last year, I took a job at a large company, and based on all of the scuttlebutt that flies around Slashdot, I feared that I would be subject to the type of employee contract that the original poster talks about. In the past, I had worked for a number of smaller firms. While they each had a contract for me to sign with regards to assignment of copyrights and patents, they were all limited. Now that I was about to embark on a career in the Fortune 500, I was afraid that they would make me sign a onerous contract without any flexibility to change it.

Boy was I wrong.

When I received the paperwork in the mail (they wanted me to fill out forms before I started, in order to speed the process along), I immediately flipped to a document entitled "Employee Proprietary Information and Innovation Agreement". I scanned it to see how many vials of blood they wanted to extract. To my delight, it was quite fair. Basically, it said that I had to assign rights to work that fell into three categories:

1. Work that related to the business of the company (i.e. I couldn't develop a competing product on my own time and profit from it).

2. Work the resulted from or was suggested by work that I had done for the company (i.e. I couldn't develop of product based on something that I had done with the company).

3. Work that was done using company time, equipment, or facilities (i.e. something that I did on company time or property).

In addition, in bold letters there was an additional paragraph stating, in clear language, that I am NOT required to assign rights to anything that I did on my own time and equipment, and that didn't relate to the companies business, and wasn't conceived based on something I did at work.

If that weren't enough, there was a section that I could declare works that were developed prior to my employment at this company, and these would be specifically excluded from assignment. That way, there would be no confusion about what I retained the rights to.

Personally, I thought this was a very fair agreement, and it made me feel good about the company I was going to work for. Also, it shows that, unlike what the original (paranoid) poster implies, companies are out to screw you out of your weblog rantings!